PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Castle Doctrine

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that the bill is passed through the senate and house of Texas and on its way to the Gov. how many folks here see it as a good thing in that we now have a legal means (not that we did not anyways) to self defense of our homes and our lives....?


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:03 PM on March 21, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We've always had the ability to defend our homes and our lives.  When did we not?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:37 PM on March 21, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This just made it 100%legal is all, but the castle doctrine is in place now in a bunch of different states so people now are not going to have the legal hassles when they defend themselves...

In some states people thought they did, and later found out they did not have that right..


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 1:48 PM on March 21, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a good law.  Yes we have had the right to defend ourselves, but under the old law, bad DAs have had the discretion to get an indictment and drag people through jury trials.  With the new law, it will be much harder to indict people for legitimate self defense.

As an example.  You wake up hearing a noise in the house, so you grab a gun and take a look.  You see a guy entering your house through a broken window and he has a knife in his hand.  You order him out but he continues entering.  You shoot and kill him.

Under the old law you had a duty to retreat if you could and under the old law a DA could let a jury decide if a reasonable person would have tried to leave the house instead of facing down the intruder.

Generally people win the jury trials but why should good citizens be forced to spend the $100k to defend themselves yet again?

Under the new law, you don’t have a duty to retreat, so the DA has little room to argue that a jury should hear the case.  Plus the new law prevents many of the BS civil suits.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 24, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is why the 'castle doctrine' should be expanded to anyplace you have a legal right to be.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/042607dnmetpgshooting.a7c0111.html

The perp 1) trespassed 2)violated protective order 3) assaulted the female 4) attempted to assault the shooter, but the shooter is in jail.  I call it BS.
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 10:05 PM on April 25, 2007 | IP
george parsons

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in oklahoma its quite simple....in fact its called a "make my day law"....kind of stupid name for it...but its basically a castle doctrine law...someone enters your home...illegally of course,ask them to leave then proceed to plan b.

now when i lived in upstate new york it was slightly diffrent...you had to se the same force as the the bad guy....he beaks in your home with a knife you cant use a gun you have to use a knife...i can see that...hold on sonny while i get my walker....go easy on me i aint had a good knife fight in years...yeah that dont work for me....i say if the loser breaks the law and enters your home illegaly then he gets what he deserves.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 09:23 AM on August 21, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only thing that is on iffy ground on this law is how it allows for using deadly force to prevent the loss of property if there is no alternative. That is a ridiculously ambiguous phrase that is sure to cause a lot of problems. It's the same problem with home defense laws in Texas prior to the Castle Doctrine. Trying to prove the "last resort" term.

*Edit
For those of you who didn't catch on to what the difference is. The Castle Doctrine dictates that a homeowner does not have to retreat while in his/her home. Before the castle doctrine, the home owner had the DUTY to try and jump out the window first.

(Edited by quatin 9/7/2007 at 5:36 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:24 PM on September 7, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My stile consists of either flanking or more commonly to hold location at all cost, why should I have to jump out my window before stopping the criminal.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:48 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why should I have to jump out my window before stopping the criminal?

I think the idea was that a human life was more important than a material item.  After all, if you wouldn't kill someone over piece of jewelry, what changed by that piece of jewelry being in your house?  If you kill him because he is trying to take it, you are still killing someone over a piece of jewelry.  If he killed you to take it, he'd be the one going to jail.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:22 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

what changed by that piece of jewelry being in your house?

The stupidity of answers like that crack me up.  What changed?  The fact that my home is MY castle.  The place that I have a right to be secure in, and for my belongings to be secure.  If I have to leave my home when an intruder enters, just who’s house is it?

Why is it considered a good thing to some people that robbers should feel secure in their choice of professions?  What’s wrong with home invaders wondering if they might die today?

The law also addresses practical concerns.  Obviously robbers enter your house at times convenient to them, and traditionally without warning.  So I think the law recognized it’s a little unreasonable for people suddenly and without warning, faced with hostile people entering their house, to have to decide if they can safely get themselves and family out of the house, or face a murder charge if they fight back.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 6:50 PM on December 3, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.